Values and dimensions of culture l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 119

Values and dimensions of culture PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 319 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Values and dimensions of culture. Lecture 10. Values. General goals that define more specific (instrumental) goals Life guidelines Criteria of evaluating goals, activities, and events Hierarchical structure: ultimate (autonomous) goals  instrumental goals.

Download Presentation

Values and dimensions of culture

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Values and dimensions of culture l.jpg

Values and dimensions of culture

Lecture 10


Values l.jpg

Values

  • General goals that define more specific (instrumental) goals

  • Life guidelines

  • Criteria of evaluating goals, activities, and events

  • Hierarchical structure: ultimate (autonomous) goals  instrumental goals


Basic values do they exist l.jpg

Basic values – do they exist?

  • AbrahamMaslow:

    • Deficit needs (food, security, self-esteem)

    • Growth needs (achievement, self-actualization)

  • Idea used by Ronald Inglehart in studies of nations values


Abraham maslow need hierarchy l.jpg

Abraham Maslow – Need Hierarchy

Growth

needs

Self-

actuali

zation

Aesthetic

Cognitive needs

Deficiency

needs

Esteem needs

Belongingness and love

Safety needs

Physiological needs


Gordon allport l.jpg

Gordon Allport

  • G. Allport: six value types:

    • economic

    • political

    • aesthetic

    • social

    • religious

    • theoretical


Value classifications l.jpg

Value classifications

  • Milton Rokeach – 36 values

    • Autonomous and instrumental values

    • Personal and social values

    • Competence and morality-related values

  • Shalom Schwartz – 56 values, 10 categories

    • Three basic categories of demands:

      • Biological demands of an organism

      • Demands of social interactions

      • Demands of smooth functioning of social groups

    • Two dimensions

      • „openness to change” – „conservatism”

      • „ self-transcendence” – „self-enhancement”


Shalom schwartz l.jpg

Shalom Schwartz

Values circumplex


Shalom schwartz theory of values l.jpg

Shalom Schwartz’ theory of values

Conservation

Security

Power

Tradition

Achievement

Conformity

Self-enhancement

Self-transcendence

Hedonism

Benevolence

Stimulation

Self-direction

Uniwersalism

Openeness to change


Self enhancement l.jpg

Self-enhancement

  • Power:

    • Social status

    • Control albo dominance over people and resources

    • Values:

      • Social power

      • Authority

      • Wealth

      • Preserving public image

      • Social recognition


Self enhancement11 l.jpg

Self enhancement

  • Achievements

    • Personal success due to own competences, in agreement with social standards

      • successful

      • Capable

      • Ambitious

      • Influential

      • Intelligent

      • Self respect


Openness to change l.jpg

Openness to change

  • Hedonism

    • Pleasures and sensory gratifications

      • Pleasure

      • Enjoying life

  • Stimulation

    • Excitement, novelty, life challenges

      • Daring

      • Varied life

      • Exciting life


Openness to change13 l.jpg

Openness to change

  • Self-direction

    • Independence of though and decison, creativity, exploration

      • Creativity

      • Freedom

      • Independence

      • Curious

      • Choosing own goals


Self transcendence l.jpg

Self-transcendence

  • Universalism

    • Undestanding, tolerance, caring about welfare of all people and nature

      • Open mind,

      • Broad-minded

      • Social justice

      • Equality

      • World peace

      • Beautiful world

      • Unity with nature

      • Inner harmony

      • Protect environment


Self transcendence15 l.jpg

Self-transcendence

  • Benevolence

    • Caring about well-being of close ones

      • Helpful

      • Honest

      • Forgiving

      • Loyal

      • Responsible

      • True friendship

      • Mature love


Conservatism l.jpg

Conservatism

  • Tradition

    • Respecting customs

    • Belief that tradition, culture and religion serve individual

      • Humble

      • Accepting my role in life

      • Respect for tradition

      • Religiosity

      • Moderate


Conservatism17 l.jpg

Conservatism

  • Conformity

    • Inhibition of actions and impulses that can hurt or are not accepted by others and that go against social norms.

      • Politeness

      • Obedience

      • Self-discipline

      • Honor elders


Conservatism18 l.jpg

Conservatism

  • Security

    Security, harmony and stability of society and own person

    • Family

    • Security

    • National security

    • Social order

    • Clean

    • Reciprocation of favors

    • Sense of belonging

    • Health


Another classification of values by shalom schwartz l.jpg

Another classification of values by Shalom Schwartz

Hierarchy

Conservatism

Mastery

Power

Security

Tradition

Achievement

Conformity

Affective

autonomy

Harmony

Hedonism

Benevolence

Stimulation

Self-direction

Egalitarian

Commitment

Universalism

Intellectual

autonomy


Studies with the value questionnaire l.jpg

Studies with the Value Questionnaire

  • 56 values

    • 52 – the 10 main types

    • 4 – ”spiritual” values

  • Autonomous vs. Instrumental values

    • 30 – autonomous (nouns)

    • 26 instrumental (adjective)

  • Rating on 9-point scale

    • -1 – against my values

    • 0 – neutral for me

    • 7 – highest importance


Profiles examples from very much like me to not like me at all l.jpg

Profiles (examples)(from Very much like me to Not like me at all)


Cross cultural studies l.jpg

Cross-cultural studies

  • 97 samples (about 200 subjects in a sample)

  • 44 countries from all continents

  • Years 1988-1993

  • Samples

    • Teachers from elementary and high schools

    • University students and pupils

    • Together 25, 863 subjects


Factor analysis of mean national values l.jpg

Factor analysis of mean national values


Main dimensions after factor analysis l.jpg

Main dimensions after factor analysis

Hierarchy

Conservatism

Mastery

Power

Security

Conservation-

Tradition

Achievement

Self-enhancemenet

Conformity

Affective

autonomy

Harmony

Benevolence

Hedonism

Self-transcendence

Stimulation

Openness to change

Self-direction

Egalitarian

Commitment

Universalism

Intellectual

autonomy


Structure of values in postcommunist countries l.jpg

Structure of values in postcommunist countries

Za: Schwartz & Bardi (1997)


Structure of values in postcommunist countries26 l.jpg

Structure of values in postcommunist countries

Za: Schwartz & Bardi (1997)


Relations between values in different countries l.jpg

Relations between values in different countries

  • Universal values (social justice, world peace, equality) opposite to security values (social order, national security)

  • In Eastern Europe – no opposition


Slide31 l.jpg

Conservation

Ordering of countries (teacher samples) after Schwartz

Georgia

Estonia

Slovakia

Poland

Malaysia

Russia

Turkey

Bulgaria

Hong Kong

Czech Republic

Tailand

Self- enhancement

Brasil

Portugal

Hungary

Italy

Mexico

Israel

Finland

USA

Slovenia

China

Australia

Japan

Spain

Denmark

Self-transcendence

New Zealand

Greece

Germany

Openness for experience

France

Switzerland

0


Schwartz s theory od values and social orientations l.jpg

Schwartz’s theory od values and social orientations


Prisoner s dilemma and social orientations l.jpg

Prisoner’s dilemma and social orientations

A

cooperates

defects

B

+10

+4

cooperates

+4

-5

-5

-3

defects

+10

-3


Social orientations as shown in social dilemmas games l.jpg

Social orientations as shown in social dilemmas games

  • Individualism – maximize own gain

  • Altruism – maximize partner’s gain

  • Cooperation – maximize joint profit

  • Competition – maximize relative gain over partner

  • Equality – minimize difference between own and partner’s gain

  • Agression – maximize partner’s losses

  • Masochism – maximize own losses

  • Martyrdom – maximize relative gain of the partner

  • Sadomasochism – mazimize joint loss


Social values according to mcclintock 1988 l.jpg

Social values according to McClintock (1988)

OTHER

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

Aggression

competition

sadomasochism

masochism

individualism

MYSELF

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1

1 2 3 4 5

1

2

3

4

5

martyrdom

Cooperation

altruism


T heory of values of shalom schwartz a nd social orientation s l.jpg

Theory of values of Shalom Schwartzand social orientations

Competition

aggression

Martyrdom

Power

Security

Tradition

Achievement

Conformity

Altruism

Hedonism

Benevolence

Stimulation

Self-direction

Universalism

Individualism

Cooperation


S tructure of values and social orientations c oopera tion vs competition l.jpg

Structure of values and social orientations (cooperation vs. competition)

After: Schwartz (1996)


Another presentation of value structure l.jpg

Another presentation of value structure

Values beyond an individual

Tradition

Security

Conformity

Power

achievement

competence

morality

Hedonism

Stimulation

Self-direction

Benevolence

universalism

Values within an individual


Ronald inglehart l.jpg

Ronald Inglehart

The World Value Survey

Two dimensions of values

  • Secular-rational vs. traditional authority

  • Survival (materialistic) vs. post-materialistic values


Diagnostic questions materialism vs postmaterialism l.jpg

Diagnostic questions: materialism vs. postmaterialism

  • People sometimes talk about what the aims of this country should be for the next ten years. On this card are listed some of the goals which different people would give top priority. Would you please say which one of these you, yourself, consider the most important? And which one would be the next most importanrt?

    • A high level of economic growth (M)

    • Making sure this country has strong defense forces (M)

    • Seeing that people have more to say about how things are done at their jobs and in their communities

    • Trying to make our cities and countryside more beautiful


Slide41 l.jpg

If you had to choose, which one of the things on this card would you say is most important? And which would be the next most important?

  • Maintaining order in the nation (M)

  • Giving people more say in important government decisions

  • Protecting freedom of speech

  • Fighting rising prices (M)

  • Here is another list....

    • A stable economy (M)

    • Progress toward a less impersonal and more humane society

    • Progress toward soecirty in which ideas count more than money

    • The fight against crime (M)


  • Slide42 l.jpg

    Ordering of questions on the dimension of materialism-postmaterialism (study 1974)


    Traditional religious vs secular values l.jpg

    Traditional (religious) vs. secular values

    • (1) monoteism – faith in one God

    • (2) family sacred (attitudes towards abortion, betrayal, prostitution, homosexualism)

    • (3) social order (attitudes towards theft, lie, agression)


    Slide45 l.jpg

    Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you need to be very careful in dealing with people? 1. Most people can be trusted2. Need to be careful

    Social trust


    Slide46 l.jpg

    European Social Survey – level of trust in European countries


    Causes of value change l.jpg

    Causes of value change

    • Cohort effects (generation)

      • Socialization factors in early childhood effect the rest of life

    • Historical period effects

      • Periods of economic depression  increase in materialistic values

    • Age effects

      • As people grow older they become more materialistic (conservative?)


    Slide53 l.jpg

    Cohort effects

    Age effects

    Cohort + historical period

    Results


    Inglehart vs schwartz l.jpg

    Inglehart vs. Schwartz


    Schwartz vs inglehart l.jpg

    Schwartz vs. Inglehart (?)

    survival

    traditional

    Hierarchy

    Conservatism

    Mastery

    Power

    Security

    Conservation-

    Tradition

    Achievement

    Self-enhancemenet

    Conformity

    Affective

    autonomy

    Harmony

    Benevolence

    Hedonism

    Openness to change

    Self-transcendence

    secular

    Stimulation

    Well-being

    Self-direction

    Egalitarian

    Commitment

    Universalism

    Intellectual

    autonomy


    Level of happiness and inglehart s dimensions l.jpg

    Level of happiness and Inglehart’s dimensions

    r(59)=0,870***

    r(59)=-0,205, n.i.


    Level of happiness and schwartz dimensions l.jpg

    Level of happiness and Schwartz’ dimensions

    r(27)=0,646***

    R(27)=0,045


    Other ways of measuring values l.jpg

    Other ways of measuring values

    If I had a million....


    Slide59 l.jpg

    Studied regions


    Spending a milion percent mentioned l.jpg

    Spending a milion – percent mentioned


    Three clusters l.jpg

    Three clusters

    Cluster I (materialistic) (N=695)

    Cluster II (mixed) (N=217)

    Cluster III (family) (N=364)

    Poland


    Generational changes poland l.jpg

    Generational changes (Poland)

    Lewicka (2003)

    Inglehart (1990)


    Polish value shift l.jpg

    Polish value shift?

    • Poland - shift from postmaterialistic to materialistic values


    Dimensions of cultures geert hofstede l.jpg

    Dimensions of cultures - Geert Hofstede

    „Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations” (2002)


    Investigating cultures methodological problems l.jpg

    Investigating cultures – methodological problems

    • Emic vs. Etic

      • Equivalent of the linguistic distinction of (fon)emic and (fon)etic aspect of speech

      • „emic” – studying culture from inside, as member of the culture

      • „etic” – studying culture from outside, as external observer, comparing cultures on common dimensions


    Emic vs etic l.jpg

    Emic vs. etic


    Steps in investigating cultures after berry 1989 l.jpg

    Steps in investigating cultures (after: Berry, 1989)

    Culture B

    (other)

    Culture A

    (own)

    Activity of

    researcher

    Step

    Start from own

    culture

    Emic

    A

    1

    Imposed

    etic

    2

    Trasnfer to other culture

    Emic

    B

    Discover other culture

    3

    Compare both cultures

    4

    Emic

    A

    Emic

    B

    Comparison

    impossible

    Emic

    A

    Emic

    B

    5-1

    5-2

    Comparison

    possible

    A

    B

    Derived

    Etic


    Methodological approaches to cross cultural comparisons l.jpg

    Methodological approaches to cross-cultural comparisons

    • 10 cultures x 20 Item-questionnaire x 100 Subjects per culture

      • Ecological level analysis: Cross-cultural approach: means from 100 Ss for each culture (20 items x 10 cultures)

      • Individual level analysis: Intra-cultural approach: separate (matrices) for each culture (10 analyses) (Emic)

      • Universal level analysis: Pancultural approach: combining all 10 x 100 Ss together (20 items x 1000 Ss) (Etic)


    Dimensions of culture l.jpg

    Dimensions of culture

    • G. Hofstede – years 70s and 80s

      • Studies of 117 000 IBM employes in 66 countries

      • Attempt at finding ”etic” dimensionswhich woulddifferentiate cultures

        • Hierarchy

        • Intolerance of ambiguity

        • Individualism-collectvism

        • Masculinity-feminity

        • „time perspective” („emic” Chinese dimension)


    Dimensions suggested by hofstede l.jpg

    Dimensions suggested by Hofstede

    • Power distance – degree of pecking order in organizations

    • Uncertainty avoidance– intolerance of ambiguity, need for clear rules and laws

    • Individualism – collectivism – Caring for oneself vs own goup

    • Masculinity-feminity – focus on ”masculine” goals (finances, achievement, assertiveness) vs. „feminine” goals (friendship, caring for others)


    Power distance family l.jpg

    Low PDI

    Parents treat children as equals

    Children should enjoy leisure

    Infertility no reason for divorce

    Children treat parents and old relatives as equal

    Children expected to be socially competent at young age

    Children play no role in old-age security of parents

    Small enterprises set up for job reasons

    High PDI

    Parents teach children obedience

    Children should work hard

    Infertility – reason for divorce

    Respect for parents and older relatives is a basic virtue

    Children not seen as competent

    Children a source of old-age security

    Small enterprises for family interests

    Power distance - Family


    Power distance at school l.jpg

    Low PDI

    Teachers treat students as equal

    Students treat teachers as equals

    Student-centered education

    Students inititate some communication in the class

    Teachers are experts who transfer impersonal truths

    Educational system focuses on middle levels

    High PDI

    Students depend on teachers

    Students treat teachers with respect, even outside class

    Teacher-centered education

    Teacher initiate all communication in the class

    Teachers are gurus who transfer personal wisdom

    Educational system focuses on top level

    Power distance at school


    Power distance in the work organization l.jpg

    Decentralized decision structures: less concentration of authority

    Flat organization pyramids

    Subordinates expect to be consulted

    Narrow salary range between top and bottom of organization

    Manual work same status as clerical work

    Centralized decision structures; more concentration on authority

    Tall organization pyramids

    Subordinates expect to be told

    Wide salary range between top and bottom of organization

    White-collar jobs valued more than blue-collar jobs

    Power distance in the work organization


    Power distance in political systems l.jpg

    Low PDI

    Pluralist government based on outcome of majority vote

    Usually social democratic governments

    Strong center, relatively weak right and left wings

    Gradual changes in form of government (evolution and stability)

    Power, status and wealth do not need to go together

    Small income differentials in society, further reduced by the tax system

    Less corruption: scandals end political career

    Citizens read more newspapers

    High PDI

    Military, autocratic or oligarchic government

    Usually right-wing government

    Polarization between left and right with weak center

    Sudden changes in the form of government (revolution and/or instability)

    Status consistency: power brings status and wealth

    Large income differentials in society, further increased by the tax system

    More corruption: scandals expected to be covered up

    Citizens watch more television

    Power distance in political systems


    Power distance l.jpg

    Power distance

    Low PD:

    Students treat teachers as equals

    We should give him something, after all it is our professor of music


    Ind ividualism vs collectvism l.jpg

    Individualism vs. collectvism

    • Individualism – societies in which relations between individuals are loose, concern for oneself and closest family

    • Collectivism – societiesin which individuals from early childhood learn to integrate with strong, coherent groups which in return for absolute loyality guarantee them security and protection.


    Individualism collectivism and societal norms l.jpg

    Low IDV

    In society, people are born into extended families or class, which protect them in exchange for loyality

    „we” consciousness

    Gemeinschaft (community)

    Value standards differ for in- and out-group: particularism

    „shame” culture

    Emphasis on belonging: membership ideal

    Private life invaded by institutions and organizations to which one belongs

    Survival

    High IDV

    In society, everyone is supposed to take care of him-herself and his or her immediate family only

    „I” consciousness

    Gesellschaft (society)

    Value standards should apply to all: universalism

    „guilt” cultures

    Emphasis on individual initiative and achievement: leadership ideal

    Everyone has a right to private life

    Hedonism

    Individualism - collectivism and societal norms


    Individualism collectivism and family l.jpg

    Low IDV

    People live with or close to relatives or clan members

    Family provides protection in exchange for life-long loyality

    Strong family ties, frequent contacts

    Fewer divorces

    Care for aged relatives and worship of ancestors

    Mothers expect to live with children in their old age

    Nobody is ever alone

    Financial and ritual obligations to relatives

    Living with in-laws and shared income and religion normal

    High IDV

    People live in nuclear or one-parent families

    Children are supposed to take care of themselves as soon as possible

    Weak family ties, rare contacts

    More divorces

    Aged relatives should care for themselves; ancestors unknown, irrelevant

    Mothers expected to live apart in their old age

    Privacy is normal

    Financial independence of relatives, few family rituals

    Living with in-laws undesirable; independence of income and religion

    Individualism-collectivism and family


    Individualism collectivism at school l.jpg

    Low IDV

    Teachers deal with pupils as a group

    Pupils’ individual initiatives discouraged

    Harmony, face and shaming in class

    Students will not speak up in class or large groups

    Purpose of education is how to do

    Diplomas provide entry to higher-status groups

    High IDV

    Teachers deal with individual pupils

    Pupils’ individual initiatives encouraged

    Students’ selves to be respected

    Students expected to speak up in class or large groups

    Purpose of education is learning how to learn

    Diplomas increase economic worth and/or self-respect

    Individualism-collectivism at school


    Individualism collectivism and consumer behavior l.jpg

    Low IDV

    Live in apartments or flats

    Live with human companions

    Security by social networks

    Ask friends for job around the house

    Read fewer book, use fewer home computers, enjoy TV more

    Social network main source of information

    High IDV

    Live in detached houses with private gardens

    Live with cats and/or dogs

    Security by home and life insurance

    Do-it-yourself for jobs around the home

    More books, use computer, use answering machines

    Media main source of information

    Individualism-collectivism and consumer behavior


    Individualism collectivism and political systems l.jpg

    Low IDV

    Collective interests supposed to prevail over individual interests

    Economy based on collective interests

    State capitalism or state socialism

    Economic monopolies

    Private life is invaded by public interests

    Rigid social and occupational class system

    Small share of national budget spent on education

    High IDV

    Individual interests supposed to prevail over collective interests

    Economy based on individual interests

    Market capitalism or market socialism

    Competition stimulated

    Everyone has a right to privacy

    Social and occupational mobility

    Large share of national budget spent on education

    Individualism-collectivism and political systems


    Individualism collectivism l.jpg

    Individualism-collectivism

    High IDV:

    Emphasis on individual initiative

    It is a free country and everybody can do what one wants


    Ind ividualism collectivism comparison after kim triandis et al 1994 l.jpg

    Individualism-collectivism – comparison (after: Kim, Triandis etal. 1994)

    Individualism

    Collectivism

    Basic assumption

    Rationality, Reason

    Basic assumption

    Relatedeness

    Principles

    Regulations,

    principles, law

    Common goods

    harmony

    Duties,

    obligations

    Individuation

    Autonomy

    support

    interdependence

    Self-actualization

    Freedom of

    choice

    help

    nurturance

    uniqueness

    Assertiveness

    Common fate

    conciliation


    Slide84 l.jpg

    Romania

    China

    Russia

    Estonia

    Slovakia

    Czechia

    Poland

    Bulgaria

    Hungary


    Uncertainty avoidance l.jpg

    Low UAI

    Lower work stress

    Emotions have to be controlled

    More subjective well-being

    Less hesitation to change employer

    Company loyalty is not a virtue

    If necessary, employees may break rules

    Less resistance to changes

    Most people can be trusted

    High UAI

    Higher work stress

    Expression of emotion normal

    Less subjective well-being

    Tendency to stay with same employer

    Company loyality is a virtue

    Company rules should not be broken

    More resistance to changes

    One can’t be careful enough with other people, not even with family

    Uncertainty avoidance


    Slide86 l.jpg

    High uncertainty avoidance

    Nowadays even own dog cannot be trusted


    Slide87 l.jpg

    China

    Estonia

    Czechia

    Hungary

    BLG

    Romania

    Poland

    Russia

    Slovakia


    Masculinity feminity l.jpg

    Low MAS

    Cooperation at work important

    Values of women and man hardly different

    Promotion by merit

    Work not central in a person’s life space

    Higher well-being in rich countries

    High MAS

    Challenge and recognition in jobs important

    Values of women and men very different

    Promotion by protection

    Work very central in a person’s life space

    Higher well-being in poor countries

    Masculinity-feminity


    Masculinity feminity and societal norms l.jpg

    Low MAS

    Relationship orientation

    Quality of life and people are important

    Sympathy for the weak

    Small and slow are beautiful

    Men and women should be modest

    Minimum emotional and social role differentiation between the genders

    High MAS

    Ego orientation

    Money and things are important

    Sympathy for the strong

    Big and fast are beautiful

    Men should be and women may be assertive and ambitious

    Maximum emotional and social role differentiattion between genders

    Masculinity-feminity and societal norms


    Masculinity feminity90 l.jpg

    Masculinity - feminity

    Low MAS

    Relationship orientation

    Write: I love Joan !


    Slide91 l.jpg

    China

    RO

    BLG

    Russia

    Czechia

    Estonia

    Poland

    Slovakia

    Hungary


    Hofstede vs schwartz l.jpg

    Hofstede vs. Schwartz

    • Hofstede

      • Originally no post-communist countries in the sample (added later)

      • Sample limited to employees of big corporations

      • Studies in years 1967-1973:

        • Before changes in Europein 1989

        • No acknowledgement of ”postmaterialistic” changes in structure of values in Western Europe


    Schwartz vs hofstede l.jpg

    Schwartz vs. Hofstede

    High power distance

    Collectivism

    High UA

    Masculinity

    Power

    Security

    Tradition

    Achievement

    Conformity

    Hedonism

    Benevolence

    Stimulation

    Universalism

    Self-direction

    Individualism

    Feminity

    Low power distance

    Low UA


    Factor analysis of schwartz inglehart and hofstede l.jpg

    Factor analysis of Schwartz, Inglehart and Hofstede


    Cultural vs objective dimensions how much of our values is due to conditions of life l.jpg

    Cultural vs. objective dimensions: How much of our values is due to conditions of life?

    Lecture 11


    Monitoring of the world l.jpg

    Monitoring of the world

    • United Nations Development Programs

      • Yearly reports comparing countries on measures indicative of quality of life

    • Transparency International

      • Reports on perceived corruption

    • OECD – Program for International Student Assessment


    Questions l.jpg

    Questions

    • „Hard” vs. „soft” measures – mutual relationships?

    • Standard of life or values - the best predictor of happiness?

    • Comparison of Poland with other countries (world, Europe) on hard and soft measures


    Measures l.jpg

    Measures

    • HDI - Human Development Index – (values 0 – 1)

    • GDP - Gross Domestic Product index – (values 0 – 1)

    • CPI - Corruption Perception Index – (values 0 – 10)

    • GINI – Gini Index – Index of social inequalities (values 0 – 100)

    • PISA - Program for International Student Assessment) – International exam of 15 years old in reading ability, mathematical knowledge and scientific thinking (values 400 – 600; mean 500 points)


    Human development index l.jpg

    Human Development Index

    • Components:

      • Life expectancy

      • Scholarization index - levels I, II & III

      • Living standard (PPP –how much can be bought with average salary)

    • Values: 0 – 1 and rank of the country

    • Description: long, wise, and affluent life of an average inhabitant of the country


    Slide100 l.jpg

    Human Development Index – position of Poland (2003)


    Slide101 l.jpg

    Gross Domestic Product (GDP –US$)– position of Poland (2001)


    Ranking of countries according to gdp hdi hdi minus gdp l.jpg

    Ranking of countries according to GDP & HDI (HDI minus GDP)


    Groups of countries level of happiness studies by inglehart 2003 n 82 l.jpg

    Groups of countries & level of happiness (studies by Inglehart 2003, N=82)


    Index of perceived corruption cpi l.jpg

    Index of Perceived Corruption (CPI)

    • Transparency International

    • ‘Measure of lost chances’


    Slide105 l.jpg

    Corruption Perception Index– position of Poland (2003)


    Gini index of social inequalities l.jpg

    Gini Index of social inequalities

    • Deviation of GDP from the perfectly equal distribution

    • Area below Lorenz curve and the hypothetical curve of the perfectly equal distribution

    • Values 0 – 100

      • 0 – whole product distributed equally (everybody gets the same share)

      • 100 – The whole product in hands of one person


    Slide108 l.jpg

    Gini Index of social inequalities (1998)


    Cross cultural comparisons of values and cultural dimensions l.jpg

    Cross-cultural comparisons of values and cultural dimensions

    • Shalom Schwartz – Value circumplex with two dimensions:

      • conservatism – openness to experience

      • self-enhancement – self-transcendence

    • Ronald Inglehart – two dimensions of values:

      • materialistic (‘survival’) vs. postmaterialistic (‘dobrostan’)

      • traditional vs. secular-rational authority

    • Geert Hofstede – four dimensions of culture:

      • individualism – collectivism

      • power distance

      • tolerance of uncertainty

      • masculinity - feminity


    Correlations of objective measures and schwartz value dimensions n 30 l.jpg

    Correlations of objective measures and Schwartz value dimensions (N=30)


    Correlations of objective measures inglehart s value dimensions n 60 l.jpg

    Correlations of objective measures & Inglehart’s value dimensions (N=60)


    Correlations of objective measures hofstede s four dimensions of culture n 66 l.jpg

    Correlations of objective measures & Hofstede’s four dimensions of culture (N=66)


    Factor analysis of dimensions from three theories schwartz inglehart hofstede l.jpg

    Factor analysis of dimensions from three theories (Schwartz, Inglehart & Hofstede)


    Factor analysis of value factors and objective measures cpi hdi gdp gini l.jpg

    Factor analysis of value factors and objective measures (CPI, HDI, GDP, GINI)


    Slide115 l.jpg

    General development - high

    Switzerland

    New Zealand

    USA

    Australia

    Germany

    Denmark

    France

    Finland

    Spain

    Japan

    Secularity, equality - high

    Secularity, equality - low

    Italy

    Portugal

    Slovenia

    Hungary

    Czech Rep.

    Brasil

    Mexico

    Poland

    Turkey

    Estonia

    Slovakia

    China

    Bulgaria

    Russia

    General development - low


    Slide116 l.jpg

    General development - high

    Japan

    Denmark

    Switzerland

    USA

    Australia

    Finland

    New Zealand

    France

    Germany

    Achievements - low

    Spain

    Achievements- high

    Portugal

    Italy

    Slovenia

    Czech Rep.

    Hungary

    Mexico

    Slovakia

    Brasil

    Estonia

    Poland

    Bulgaria

    Turkey

    China

    Russia

    General development - low


    Predictors of happiness l.jpg

    Predictors of happiness?


    Slide118 l.jpg

    Factor I general development

    Happiness (Inglehart) & three factors

    R(24)=0,815***

    Factor III secularity /equality

    R(24)=-0,225, n.i.

    Factor II achievement

    R(24)=0,011


    Slide119 l.jpg

    Predictors of happiness – structural model

    Chi-2=8,084, df=6, p=0,232 RMSEA=0,045


  • Login